To all this, indeed, the common answer is, that most of the names of offices are, in scriptural language, not so uniformly appropriated to the particular offices, as not occasionally to be applied to others, agreeably to the etymological import of the words. Thus the term axovo is applied to the apostles them. selves. John calls himself perßulspos, elder; so also does Peter; and Christ is styled eininently both apostle and bishop. To the same purpose it is urged, that sometimes in the Old Testament the high priest is called simply the priest. It would, however, be much more to the point, if a passage could be named wherein an ordinary priest is styled high priest. The superiour order, it is universally admitted, ineludes the inferiour, but this does not hold conversely. Now, in the first passage above quoted from the Acts, it is manifest, that the ordinary pastors of Ephesus are styled bishops; for in no period of episcopacy, according to the present acceptation of the word, was there a plurality of bishops in one city and church. It is indeed affirmed, that in one passage, 2 Cor. viii, 23, the term apostle is applied to those who were of a lower order than the apostles properly so called. It is, however, observable, that the expression there used, is a xxiv, apostles, or messengers of the churches, not apostles of Jesus Christ, or apostles simply, without any addition, which are the common expressions used for those who were selected to be the principal promulgators of the faith. And it shows, that Theodoret, who lived several hundred years after, was very much puzzled where to find the origin of the office of bishop, as the word in his time implied, when he imagined he discovered it in a phrase which occurs but once in the New Testament, and of which the application is extremely doubtful. But the short, though full reply, to the aforesaid answer, is this: It is not denied, that those terms urged by the objectors, are, on certain occasions, used with greater latitude than in the ordinary application. Neverthe less, the ordinary and peculiar application is supported by so many clear passages of sacred writ, as to be rendered quite indubitable. On the contrary, one single passage from the apos tolical writings has not yet been produced, in which it appears from the context, that the two terms perßülepes and extor mean different offices.

Nay, we can say more than this, which may be called a negative and presumptive proof only, that there is the strongest positive evidence which the nature of the thing can admit, that in those writings the two terms uniformly mean the same of fice. The apostle Paul, in the directions he gave to Timothy, about the proper supply of churches with suitable ministers, takes particular notice of two orders, and no more. One of

them he calls bishops, and the other deacons. Now if by bishops he meant what in modern style is so denominated, those who have the charge of many presbyters, it is astonishing that he should not think it of importance to give any directions about the qualifications of presbyters, who had the immediate inspection of the flock; at the same time that he is very particular in regard to the qualifications of deacons, though their order has ever been allowed to be much inferiour to the other. And if (as even some friends of episcopacy have admitted) he here means by bishops only presbyters; that an office of so great importance as the bishops, (if it was a different and superiour office) should have been entirely overlooked, is no less surprising. Further, in support of this argument, that there were but two orders then established, let it be observed, that Paul, in addressing the Philippians i. 1, expresses himself in this manner; "To all the saints at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." All commentators of any name, except Dr. Hammond, of whom I shall take notice afterwards, agree, that by bishops here is meant the ordinary pastors or presbyters; for it is almost universally allowed, as I had already an occasion of hinting, that when the distinction came to be established there was never more than one bishop in a city or church. And as true it is also, that then there was no city which had a church, and not a bishop. Now if there was a bishop, in the modern sense, at Philippi, when the apostle wrote that letter, it looks a little strange, that he who was the chief of that christian society should be the only person that was neglected by the apos tle on that occasion. The arbitrary suppositions that have been framed, in order to elude the force of this argument, as they are without even the shadow of evidence, can merit, no regard. On the other hand, it is remarkable, and may serve, if possible, to convince the most obstinate of the futility of those supposi❤ tions, that in the epistle written by Polycarp to the same congregation, about sixty years after, we find mention only of those two orders, the presbyters and the deacons ; and no more allu. sion made either to a vacancy in their number, or to any spiritual superiour, present or absent, than was made by Paul in his letter to them so long before. Now whether we call their pastors bishops, with the apostle, or presbyters, with Polycarp, is a matter of no consequence, as it is evident that both speak of two orders only among them, and not of three; and wherever que of these names is employed, the other is dropped, this being the surest evidence which the nature of the thing admits, that the words were synonymous.

But I observe further, that the sacred penmen, in speaking of, or to particular churches, if the spiritual instructors and

66

guides of the people be mentioned at all, always mention them in the plural number, which, though it may be compatible with some little difference in rank or precedency, can scarcely be thought compatible with so material a difference as that of office or trust. Thus the apostle to the Thessalonians, 1 Thess. v. 12, "We beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish "" you,” τ8ς κοπίων]ας και προίςαμενές και να θελοντας. It is remarkable too, that the term apoi, as every other name implying direction, or government, came afterwards to be appropriated to the bishop; with whom, according to the doctrine of high church, the whole authority over the congregation was origi nally lodged. The presbyters could do nothing but as they happened to be authorized or commissioned by him. The use of such terms here, in the plural, when the apostle was addressing the members of one single church, shows, that the application was very different, and that matters were then on a very different footing. In the Acts also, it appears very plain, that all the stated pastors are always considered as coming under one denomination. Thus we are told of the apostles Paul and Barnabas, Acts xiv, 23, that, when journeying together, they ordained elders, aperßulepas, in every church. This is, indeed, the common title given to the ministers settled in particular churches throughout that book. When a collection is made for the poor christians in Jerusalem, it is sent rois @poßulεpois; and if the pastors of any church are sent for, that they may receive proper directions, it is 785 ßlps. In the fifteenth chapter, where we have an account of the.consultation held at Jerusalem, about the Mosaick ceremonies, the ordinary pastors are no less than five times, to wit, in verses 2d, 4th, 6th, 22d, and 23d, distinguished by this appellation from either the apostles, or private christians, or both. Nor do we find a single hint in the whole book of any thing like different classes of πρεσβύτεροι. The name επίσκοποι occurs there but once, which is in the place above quoted, where it is applied to the same individuals, who, in the same chapter, are termed peo Βυτεροι.

In regard to the imposition of hands, which is considered by many as a necessary attendant on ordination, we find this also, 1 Tim. iv. 14, attributed to the presbytery. The word wpB¬ Teploy, though it occurs sometimes in the New Testament as applied to the Jewish sanhedrim, or council of elders, is found only in the passage now quoted, applied to a christian council. The sense of the word pulpes, as well as the application of the word aperẞlepov, in other places, to a convention of those called perßules, determines the sense of the word in this pas

sage. And, indeed, all christian antiquity concurs in affixing this name to what may be called the consistory of a particular church, or the college of its pastors.

It must be remarked by every person who gives due attention to the apostolical writings, that the custom then, if not uniformly, was, with very few exceptions, to give a plurality of teachers to every church. The state of the christian community at that time, which consisted almost entirely of new con verts, men and women, who had been habituated to principles and practices very different from those they were to be instructed in, beside the more imminent dangers to which all christians, but especially the pastors, were then exposed, rendered this precaution absolutely necessary. They had, by this means, a probable ground to expect, that if some of the teachers should fall a sacrifice to the malice of their enemies, some would escape their fury, and that in every church a timely opportunity might thus be found of supplying their vacancies, so that the congregations should never be entirely destitute of pastors.

.

To what has been adduced from sacred writ, I shall add two very ancient testimonies: one of them is from the most respectable remains we have of christian antiquity next to the inspired writings. The piece I allude to, is the first epistle of Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians, as it is commonly styled, but as it styles itself, the epistle of the church of God at Rome to the church of God at Corinth. It is the same Cle ment whom Paul (Philip. iv, 3,) calls his fellow-labourer, and one of those whose names are in the book of life. There we are told, chap. xlii, that "the apostles having preached the "Gospel in countries and towns, constituted the first fruits of "their ministry, whom they approved by the spirit, bishops and "deacons of those who should believe." And in order to sa tisfy us, that he did not use these words in a vague manner for church-officers in general, but as expressive of all the distinct orders that were established by them in the church, he adds, "Nor was this a new device, inasmuch as bishops and deacons "had been pointed out many ages before; for thus says the "Scripture," I will constitute their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith." The passage quoted is the last clause of the 17th verse of the 60th chapter of Isaiah. It is thus rendered in our version: "I will make thine officers peace, and "thine exactors righteousness." Whether this venerable an eient has given a just translation, or made a proper application of this prediction, is not the point in question. It is enough that it evinces what his notion was of the established ministers then in the church. And if, (as no critick ever questioned, and

as his own argument necessarily requires) he means the same by bishops with those who, in the Acts, are called polepo whom the apostles Paul and Barnabas ordained in every church, and whom Clement, in other parts of this epistle, also calls perBulepos, namely, the ordinary teachers, it would seem strange, that the bishop, properly so called, the principal officer of all, should be the only one in his account, of whom the Holy Spirit, in sacred writ, had given no previous intimation. Nay, do not the words of this father manifestly imply, that any other office in the church than the two he had mentioned, might be justly styled a new device or invention? Dr. Pearson, in his Vindicia Ignatianæ, insists much, that whenever any of the fathers purposely enumerate the different orders in the church, they mention always three. If the above account given by Clement is not to be considered as an enumeration, I know not what to call it. If two were actually all the orders then in the church, could he have introduced the mention of them, by telling us he was about to give a list, or catalogue, or even to make an enumeration of the ecclesiastical degrees? Is this a way of prefacing the mention of so small a number as two? It is this writer's express design to acquaint us what the apostles did for accommodating the several churches they planted, in pastors and assistants. And can we suppose he would have omitted the chief point of all, namely, that they supplied every church with a prelate, ruler, or head, if any one had really been entitled to this distinction?

If it should be urged, that under the term in both functions of bishop and presbyter are comprehended, it is manifest, that, as it was the writer's scope to mark the different offices established, as being predicted by the prophets in the Old Testament, there cannot be a stronger indication, that there was then no material, if any difference, between them, and that they were properly denominated and considered as one office. The appellatives also by which they are denoted, are invariably employed by him in the plural number, as being equally applicable to all. It is said in chap. i, THIS BEVIS UPLO

love, submitting to your governours or guides. It is remarkable also, that the word yes, here used in the plural of all their pastors, is one of those terms which came afterwards to be appropriated to the bishop. Nay, since it must be admitted, that in the New Testament, as well as in the ancient christian monument just now quoted, the words wiσotos and ape Bulepos, are not occasionally, but uniformly, used synony mously, the very discovery, that there was not any distinctive appellation for such an office as is now called bishop, is not of inconsiderable weight to prove, that it did not exist. We